Whitehead v. Pelican Lake First Nation

Whitehead v. Pelican Lake First Nation

Where a band's own election statute governs (PLEA) and the IBCPR do not apply, a Band Council retains customary and inherent powers to discipline/suspend councillors when legislation has not covered the field; the PLFN demonstrated sufficient evidence of custom and past practice, the suspensions were intra vires and not unreasonable, and the application for judicial review is dismissed (application also engaged limitation and Rule 302 issues but the Court reviewed the four related monthly suspensions together as a continuous course of conduct).

Citation
2009 FC 1270
Parties
Applicant Councillor: Fred Whitehead; Applicant Councillor: Jimmy Bill; Respondent Band Council: Pelican Lake First Nation; Respondent Chief: Chief Peter Bill; Respondent Councillor: Gilbert Chamakese; Respondent Councillor: David Thomas; Respondent Councillor: Romeo Thomas; Respondent Councillor: Sydney Bill
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Reasons for Judgment and Judgment (decision)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Band Council Suspension, Customary Authority, Doctrine of Necessity, Limitation Period, Federal Courts Act S.18.1(2), Federal Courts Rules Rule 302
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Indigenous Law Federal Court Procedure Judicial Review Band Council Suspension Customary Authority Doctrine of Necessity Limitation Period +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fred Whitehead

Applicant Councillor

Jimmy Bill

Applicant Councillor

Pelican Lake First Nation

Respondent Band Council

Chief Peter Bill

Respondent Chief

Gilbert Chamakese

Respondent Councillor

David Thomas

Respondent Councillor

Romeo Thomas

Respondent Councillor

Sydney Bill

Respondent Councillor

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Reasons for Judgment and Judgment (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Band Council had jurisdiction to temporarily suspend councillors
  2. 2 Whether the application was time‑barred under s.18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act and inconsistent with Rule 302
  3. 3 Whether the remedies sought (damages, injunctions, mandamus) were appropriate in a judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Where a band's own election statute governs (PLEA) and the IBCPR do not apply, a Band Council retains customary and inherent powers to discipline/suspend councillors when legislation has not covered the field; the PLFN demonstrated sufficient evidence of custom and past practice, the suspensions were intra vires and not unreasonable, and the application for judicial review is dismissed (application also engaged limitation and Rule 302 issues but the Court reviewed the four related monthly suspensions together as a continuous course of conduct).

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed without costs